Talk:Natural rights and legal rights/Archive 3

Move

 * There is nothing on Wikipedia with that title. You could've moved it yourself. --Apostrophe 05:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The renaming will probably be controversial, and it's always best in those circumstances to gauge consensus rather then being bold. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 12:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't imagine that it would have been problematic. Of course, I'm the kind of person who moves articles indiscrimately and deals with possible outcry afterwards. Perhaps not a good trait, but alas. Support, regardless. --Apostrophe 16:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy Disputed
Someone needs to go through this article, and examine these claims about the person named John Lilburne. This info was put here by MPLX, who has constructed a series of questionable articles with the seeming purpose of inflating Lilburns's place in history. See: John Lilburne Research Institute, Four Freedoms Federation, Self-incrimination, and the extremly questionable Province of the Carolanas. --JW1805 03:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Naming
As the term "unalienable" is an archaic variant of "inalienable", and not to be found outside historical documents and descendants or discussions thereof, shouldn't this article be Inalienable rights? In all the political philosophy/theory books at which I've looked, the term used is "inalienable", so normal Naming conventions presumably apply here. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
Inalienable" is used in all modern texts on political theory and philosophy, and in ordinary English; "unalienable" is archaic, and only survives because of its use in certain important historical documents. As the article is about the rights in general, it should use the most common term. (And it should, of course, be singular in line with normal Wikipedia naming conventions.
 * Support for the reasons given above. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree that this article should be moved to Inalienable rights (and redirect "Unalienable rights" to that article). --JW1805 02:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose This may be another Anglo-American question; but I believe Jefferson's usage is still current. (and isn't more important to be bold to the article?) Septentrionalis 22:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. In my dictionaries unalienable appears as a variant of inalienable. – AxSkov ( ☏ ) 16:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Emphatically Oppose "Unalienable" refers to those components of the human psyche that cannot be relinquished (as per the US Declaration of Independence), whereas "inalienable" refers to pleas for things not to be taken based on moral grounds (as per the following links:      ) and as more fully detailed below in discussion.  --Zephram Stark 18:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 10:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Provide a reference and you're fine. Unalienable rights should at least still redirect here, of course. (because it's historic :-) ) Kim Bruning 01:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The US Declaration of Independence is the most important and influential document in the history of my country. Every citizen of my country takes a whole day of every year to honor its anniversary. The entire meaning of the document hinges around the definition of the word "unalienable." The Declaration loses its sense of being a logical conclusion of the British Crown's failure to act in accordance with observable human nature if "unalienable" is defined merely as "things that shouldn't be taken away on moral grounds." The meaning must always represent what Thomas Jefferson intended: parts of the human psyche that cannot be relinquished or taken by any means. --Zephram Stark 01:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The definitions of words in current usage can get confused. Take "terrorism" for instance.  For two hundred years, the term meant "the systematic use of terror for the purpose of coercion."  Now the idiots over at that article are arguing over whether to change the definition to mean "violence for the purpose of evil" or to make "terrorism" so ambiguous that nobody knows what it means.  I don't want that to happen to the critical meaning of "unalienable."  It's better that "unalienable" has become archaic because then we can only refer to it in its historic usage.  I say, leave it alone.  Define it separately.  The meaning of the US Declaration of Independence must not change because we want to use one of its words in a different context.  --Zephram Stark 02:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. There aren't two concepts, there are two versions of the word. When modern political theorists talk about rights, they use "inalienable"; see, for example: Even if the article were about the U.S. political system, or even about the Declaration of Independence (and it's of course about neither), many of the sources above are also about those things. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * D.D. Raphael Problems of Political Philosophy (revised edition) p.105
 * Flew & Priest [edd] A Dictionary of Philosophy (includes entry on "inalienable" but not "unalienable")
 * Simon Blackburn Dictionary of Philosophy (includes entry on "inalienable" but not "unalienable")
 * (a U.S. source that explicitly translates "unalienable" in the Declaration of Independence as "inalienable")
 * ,, , , , , , , , etc.
 * I think that is the issue that needs to be decided. If the two really are the same thing and will always remain so, of course they should be united.  I will research those articles and see if they are used in exactly the same context as the U.S. Declaration of Independence.  However, because the definition of 'unalienable' is forever locked to this historic document, I know that it will never change.  Can you say for certain that the definition of 'inalienable' will never change?  If not, how can we say that the two spellings will always have the same definition?  Thanks for the links.  --Zephram Stark 23:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * After reading these articles, it appears to me that "inalienable" and "unalienable" mean completely different things. Can we really compare our unalienable need for self-preservation (right to life, [D.O.I]) to "an inalienable right held by any and all refugees that entitles them to return at any time to their homes?""Unalienable" refers to those things that cannot be relinquished.  It is impossible for human beings to give up our sense of self-preservation or the desire to benefit self and society as we see fit.  These rights are so integrated with human nature that they can be neither taken, nor given up, regardless of the level of coercion exerted.  When England decided to "shock and awe" the backwards colonies into submission, they entered a war that could not be won while there was a single colonist standing.  Human nature prevented the colonists from giving up their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The truth of this being part of the human psyche is self-evident—-you can see it in every interaction of the human species without fail.  Unalienable rights cannot be relinquished by any means."Inalienable," on the other hand, as used in the above articles, is merely an argument that something should not be taken.  Many of the arguments state that the "right" in question has already been taken and should be given back.  Obviously it can be taken if it already has been taken.The meanings of the two words may seem similar on the surface, but the underlying principles are completely different.  A claim that an inalienable right should not be taken is nothing more than a pleading with the audience to be fair.  Unalienable rights, on the other hand, have nothing to do with what is fair, what is equitable, or what another person can grant the petitioner.  Unalienable is a statement of fact; it cannot be taken, nor relinquished.  It puts all of the rights and responsibilities squarely in the hands of the people.   --Zephram Stark 13:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure of the origin of your claims here. Apparently the most recent citations of "unalienable" in the OED are nineteenth century; I've failed to find any modern use of the term, and I've given a number of citations showing that "inalienable" is merely the modern favoured spelling.  It's true that the concept has changed over the centuries, but that's irrelevant to the word.  Do you have citations showing the modern use of "unalienable"?Note, too, that your distinction doesn't hold; you're sliding from talking about the use of the term (with either spelling) to refer to rights in a philosophical sense to talking about its use when talking about practice.  One can say that the right to freedom is inalienable while accepting that in factsometimes people enslave each other; that just means that the right isn't lost, it's violated. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Use of the term "unalienable" is archaic. I don't know of anyone who uses it any more except in reference to the United States Declaration of Independence.  On the other hand, "inalienable" is used all the time today to mean "something that should not be taken away" as per your examples.  Whereas, "unalienable" is based of observable truth, "inalienable" is based only on the constructs of society.Your articles that speak of one group or another having the "inalienable" right to the land east of the Mediterranean Sea, for example, are certainly not talking about observable components of the human psyche.  There is no innate requirement for humans to possess a particular patch beachfront property on a choice inlet.  They like it because it is green, prime land—-not too hot like the desert all around, and not too cold like the German/Saxon land farther north.  If the Mediterranean dried up—-turning Jerusalem into a sand dune—-you can bet your booties nobody would be fighting over that "holy land."The bottom line is that some truths are self-evident.  Anybody can see that we all have a need for self-preservation, for instance, and that there is no way to strip that need from the definition of a human.  Other things, like land disputes, are not self-evident, nor are they truths (as universally determined by the scientific method).  Instead, they are constructs of human society.  If we adopt Plato's view of reality—-a combination of truth, goodness, and beauty—-we can argue that one group or the other deserves the land east of the Mediterranean, but that argument would be based solely on goodness and beauty.  There is no inherent truth that can be universally proven via the scientific method binding that land to any particular group.  Therefore, when people talk about an "inalienable" right to a particular stretch of land, they are only talking about the beautiful social acceptance of that claim and the goodness that claim will bring to society.  They are not talking about "truth" in a provable or universally observable sense.  The term "inalienable" is referring quite specifically to good and beautiful constructs of our society.  "Unalienable," on the other hand, refers to truth that can be universally proven via the scientific method and is also obviously present for all to see in the human psyche.  The two words sound alike, but refer to polar opposite components of reality.I can think of only one reason why anyone would want to combine the two terms: because they are trying to show that today's vague and subjective use of "inalienable" has anything to do with the exact and provable "unalienable" in the United States Declaration of Independence.  If the two words were combined, the resulting definition would only be as strong as the weakest link—-Middle Eastern land dispute arguments would not become more powerful.  The effect would only bring the meaning of the most important document in the history of the United States of America down to that level.  I would suggest, instead, that you simply create a definition of “inalienable” that you like and leave it at that.  Thomas Jefferson certainly never intended his choice of words to be stretched to justify both sides of a Middle Eastern land dispute.   --Zephram Stark 16:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) In what sense was "unalienable" empirical? And how can something be both self-evident and empirical? If it's self-evident, then it doesn't need external evidence.
 * 2) What's the basis for your assumption about the use of "inalienable"? I don't know of anyone who uses it to refer to a social construct.  People who believe that rights are social constructs generally don't talk about inalenable ones.
 * 3) I've moved this here. it would need, in any case, to be copy-edited, but it's in fact original research.  There is no controversy except from Zephram Stark.
 * == Inalienable v. Unalienable ==
 * Controversy exists over whether inalienable means the same thing as unalienable. Unalienable is an archaic term always used in reference to that part of the human psyche which cannot be relinquished through any means. Proponents for a common definition assert that inalienable means the same thing. Whether or not they should mean the same thing is a matter of debate, but in current speech, inalienable is also used in the context of a plea for things not to be taken, based on moral grounds.
 * 1) There seems to be a certain nationalistic fervour to your position that I have trouble grasping. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've given you a great deal of latitude on this Mel, but changing the words of the Declaration of Independence is going too far. That is blatant vandalism.  Please stop your vandalism now or I will have no choice but to block you from this definition.  --Zephram Stark 21:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The difference between unalienable and inalienable is purely verbal. Jefferson quotes himself in his Autobiography as using "in-"; and he was explicitly conparing his draft to the final declaration of the Continental Congress. Please stop unnecessary claims of vandalism. Septentrionalis 22:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Note also that I didn't change the words of any document; I left "unalienable" in the quotations, and used "inalienable" whn referring to it (as do the U.S. documents to which I've linked above). Zephram Stark keeps adding quotation marks around the term so that he can make his claim, which is peculiar at best. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What the hell is wrong with you? The Declaration of Independence does not say inalienable.  It doesn't make any difference if you used quotes.  You are still misleading people.  This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that combining the two words opens the door to revisionist history.  You can argue that the two words mean the same thing, but you can't argue about what is actually on the Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration of Independence says, "unalienable."Why are you trying to revise history?  Why are you trying to make people think that it says "inalienable" on the DOI?  Why do you not want people to know that "unalienable" in the DOI means something different than "inalienable" in all of these articles?        Knowingly reverting to something that is factually incorrect or misleading is vandalism.  You could have argued that you didn't know what the DOI said until I fixed it the first time and told you, but now you have knowingly reverted the definition to claim that the DOI says inalienable several times.  Why?!!!  What is your agenda?  Why are you f*@k!n& with the foundation of my country?  --Zephram Stark 22:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Can we go back to the uniform usage of the Americanism "unalienable", or is it too late now? Septentrionalis 22:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that would be best. You give some people an inch and they take a mile.  When they start messing with the actual wording of the Declaration of Independence, it has gone to far.  It's time to separate the two words and leave the Declaration as it was intended.  --Zephram Stark 22:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

(After edit conflict)

But there is no such usage; I've yet to find a single instance of "unalienable" in modern usage on either side of the Atlantic, and I gave a string of citations above in which U.S. sites (academic and non-academic) use "inalienable", often to talk about the Declaration of Independence. I still don't understand the problem with this. No-one has yet provided a citation for a modern usage of "unalienable" except as a reference to an 18th-century diocument. It's as if someone were trying to insist that we use Elizabethan spellings in articles that mention Shakespeare, and were trying to make it a matter of national British pride...

As for Zephram Stark's obvious misdescription of what's going on, there's no point responding, as he's clearly not listening. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * LMAO Who isn't listening?  I've said four times that the term is archaic.  You keep arguing that it can't be found in modern usage.  You know why?  Because it isn't used in modern usage.  It is archaic.  That is not the issue.  It never was.  The issue is that the two words do not mean the same thing in usage as per the links to articles that you provided.  Why not combine "unalienable" with "sacrosanct?"  It's the same argument: they aren't spelled the same, they don't mean the same thing, but who cares because we can use it for our ulterior agendas if we pretended that the Declaration of Independence said sacrosanct instead of unalienable.  --Zephram Stark 23:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * One last time. First, if you read the discussion carefully you'll see that my comments about the archaic status of the word were in response to Septentrionalis, not to you. Secondly, there aren't two concepts, only two versions of a word.  Your claims about the intentions of the Declaration of Independence and the use today are both original research and false.  Thirdly, no-one is making any claims about the wording of the Declaration of Independence; it's quoted in the article as using "unalienable".  As with most sources, the modern term is used when talking about it.Before you continue your emotional argument here, go and accuse George Mason University  and the other U.S. sites linked to above, who explicitly use "inalienable" to explain the archaic term "unalienable".  Why do you think that you're the only one in step?  Why do you think that every relevant modern book and Web source is involved either in some awful anti-U.S. conspiracy or in a universal cock-up? --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * When the Declaration of Independence was written, each word was carefully chosen so that this would not happen—-so that the meaning could not be corrupted. The Declaration does not rely on any outside support.  Every term means exactly what it sounds like, and each section builds on the precise logic of the lines preceding it.  The Declaration of Independence was written so that it would stand on its own—-so that someone reading it without university or religious interpretation would know exactly what it means.  The only thing that citizens of the United States have to do is preserve it in its original form.  We have to keep people like you from changing the words, thereby confusing the meanings.  Unalienable means exactly what it sounds like: cannot be separated from.  Self-evident means exactly what it sounds like: evidence of which you can obtain by yourself.  Creator means exactly what it sounds like: the unspecified being or natural force that created us.  "Consent of the Governed" means exactly what is sounds like: each person being governed agrees with the system of government.  There is no hype or wishful thinking in the United States Declaration of Independence.  It is a powerful statement of the principles, based on observable UNALIENABLE components of the human psyche, necessary to establish a stable government.  There are no pleas to be fair or for others to help the petitioners out, like in your articles using "inalienable."  The Declaration is stated as truths that are self-evident.  To the extent that a government implements these "truths," it will be stable.  To the extent that a government becomes destructive to these ends, it will be overthrown.I've watched people like you try to subvert the foundation of my country for years.  It makes me sick to listen to this pseudo-science, "The US founding fathers didn't actually mean the words that they wrote.  When they said 'unalienable,' they weren't talking about something that cannot be alienated.  They merely meant things that should not be taken away on moral grounds.  When they said 'self-evident,' they weren't talking about evidence that you can witness for yourself.  They merely meant 'because I said so.'"These allegations are absurd.  Anyone reading the Declaration without the benefit of your interpretation knows it.  The words in the Declaration mean exactly what they say.  "Unalienable" means exactly what it sounds like, not some pathetic plea to be fair, like the "inalienable" of your examples.  This powerful word and its far-reaching implications will always be part of the Declaration of Independence, regardless of your attempts to rewrite history.  --Zephram Stark 14:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Let me, for the honor of my country (and yes, I am eligible to the Presidency of the United States) try one last appeal to logic here:
 * Jefferson himself quotes the DoI using "inalienable", so
 * He saw no distinction of meaning, so
 * There was none, so
 * There is none. Septentrionalis 23:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * How do you make the leap of logic from "There was none" to "There is none?" Jefferson's first draft used the term "inalienable."  It was changed to "unalienable" because "inalienable" was more popular.  The importance of the term is so paramount to the meaning of the Declaration of Independence that a less popular word was used purposefully so that the meaning would not change over time.  As usual, the founding fathers were dead on.  "Inalienable" means something different today.  In most usage it refers to things that "should not be taken away."  If you don't know the difference, please research it.  Here is a good starting place: Introduction to Philosophy.  --Zephram Stark 00:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC
I've opened an RfC on the article, as it seems that outside comments might be useful. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Just a heads-up, but Zephram Stark is the same editor who (along with a few sock/meatpuppets) is making a pest of himself at Terrorism -- with original research he refuses to back up -- to the point of requiring page protection. See Talk:Terrorism for the gory details. --Calton | Talk 08:25, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

What do you do, follow me around? --Zephram Stark 13:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't flatter yourself, trollboy. See the header above? The one that says RfC? What do you think it stands for? What do think its purpose is?


 * Wait, don't bother: it'll probably resort in a 300-word neologism-loaded definition that bears no relation to reality. (And speak of the devil, look what you've written below.) --Calton | Talk 21:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * No kidding! I think I'll start following you around just to watch the chaos these people who keep calling others sockpuppets are creating! I was over there and that's what happened to me. This sucks. Good luck. --EKBK 15:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You are probably a sockpuppet, but when ZS's peculiar rewrite of Terrorism are reverted by a clusetered series of one-shot IP numbers, often within minutes or each other, the sockpuppetry exhibited there is absurdly transparent. --Calton | Talk 21:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Calton, just a heads-up on "heads-up" usage: you never put a "but" after saying "heads up." "Just a heads-up" is used in the same context as "I proclaim."  You wouldn't say, "I proclaim, but Zephram Stark is an evil sock-puppetmaster."  Instead, you would say, "I proclaim, Zephram Stark is an evil sock-puppetmaster."  I hope you take this only as constructive criticism because I'm quite impressed with your English.  It is usually immaculate, especially in your libelous use of facts that are not in evidence.  --Zephram Stark 15:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * After you buy that dictionary you obviously are in desperate need of, you should also buy yourself a book on elementary logic. Use them both, and if you actually care to contribute to an online encyclopedia instead of "Zephram Stark Explains it All" -- you seem to have trouble telling the difference -- come on back. --Calton | Talk 21:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. After reading this book on elementary logic, I can see that there is one instance where I could use "Head," "Up," and "Butt" together in a sentence in reference to you.  --Zephram Stark 21:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you can -- and it'd be as nonsensensical as all your other contributions, of course. --Calton | Talk 21:55, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Personal essay alert
has tried to place a PoV personal essay at Unalienable rights in an attempt to bypass this discussion. I've reverted it, but other editors might want to keep an eye on it too. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC
I will be petitioning for additional Request for Comments on that article. I have been able to verify every one of the sources on that page. It appears that you have a personal agenda to keep relevant information from people with this. I will be looking through your edit history to see how often this goes on. --206.176.221.196 16:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment on the RFC: the claim that "inalienable" is recent is a falsehood, the OED's oldest citation for both words is from a 1611 dictionary:


 * 1611 Cotgrave., Inalienable, vnalienable; which cannot be sold, or passed away.


 * It should be observed that the following quotations, until Macaulay's use of Jefferson, have nothing to do with that anachronistic idea, the psyche.


 * 1641 EARL OF MONMOUTH tr. Biondi's Civil Warres v. 125 Those countries..which for safety and reputation ought to be unallienable from the Crowne of England. 1688 Answ[er to M.] Talon's Plea 27 This Monsieur Talon maintains to be an unalienable right of the Crown of France. 1743 J. MORRIS Serm. vii. 197 God..gives all men their being, and has an unalienable claim to their obedience. 1771 GOLDSM. Hist. Eng. II. 307 Giving these petty tyrants a power of selling their estates, which before his time were unalienable. 1841 STEPHEN Comm. Laws Eng. (1874) II. 13 Personal chattels cannot in any instance be rendered unalienable beyond the period prescribed. 1855 MACAULAY Hist. Eng. xvii. IV. 115 That all men were endowed by the Creator with an unalienable right to liberty


 * The PoV OR originally put at Unalienable rights is this edit. A redirect was an improvement. It still may be.Septentrionalis 20:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Support
I don't believe this section is appropriate for Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia, it should simply present information and not be a forum for debate within articles. IMO, the "Support" section should be merged with "Criticism". Lapafrax 10:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The "Support and Criticism" section has been renamed simply "Criticism", because it does not contain any information of a supportive nature. Perhaps if someone would like to add some, the old title would better suit being reinstated. 66.41.75.236 22:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Is this some kind of joke? I added support in a Support section but the two sections were merged, all support was deleted, and then the section was renamed back to Criticism.  What good would adding support do again?  It's obvious that the intent of this article is to change the wording of the United States Declaration of Independence, change the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, and then argue that the new meaning assigned to it makes no sense.  Of course it makes no sense, because the Unalienable right to life and liberty isn't even close to being in the same category as an Inalienable right to Mediterranean property and nuclear fuel cycles.  The Declaration of Independence is an acknowledgement of the self-evident nature of mankind.  This Inalienable article is nothing but pleading for vague moral fairness.  These comparisons to a word that wasn't even used in the Declaration and the POV original-research Criticism of Inalienable has absolutely nothing to do with the United States Declaration of Independence.  The Unalienable rights article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.  If you have any respect for the founding principles of the United States of America, please share your thoughts on the matter at Articles_for_deletion/Unalienable_rights.  --Zephram Stark 02:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The aforesaid Support section is unsourced original research; whoever removed it is fully justified on those grounds. As for the final plea, I respect the English language and Mr. Jefferson's account of his own actions. Septentrionalis 05:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, the source referenced in the Support section was the text of the Declaration of Independence. Even though a simple Google search yields 18,000 hits for unalienable vs. inalienable, the actual text of the Declaration of Independence is so incredibly clear that interpretation is unnecessary.  No matter how adamantly you try to redefine the terms and confuse their meanings, "unalienable" and "self-evident" will always mean exactly what they appear to mean.  --Zephram Stark 15:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 
 * Back when I was in school, I memorized it as inalienable, so was shocked to go look at the original document and learn that it says "unalienable". Oddly, according to dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (1996) has them as synonyms, as it also does for WordNet 2.0 (2003) from Princeton University. Heck, if you check the modern OED, it has inalienable as the definition of unalienable --Habap 17:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * According to Webster, a synonym has "the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses." There are many sources that say "inalienable" and "unalienable" are synonyms.  There are also many sources that say they are not.  A Google search for inalienable vs. unalienable returns 18,800 matches.  I find that the most scholarly articles dealing with the question say that there is not only a fundamental difference, but that the terms in usage are almost polar opposites.  Nevertheless, I'm sure we can all agree that there is not universal consensus on the subject.
 * If we are to reach consensus within Wikipedia, then, we're going to have to use a little common sense.

--Zephram Stark 18:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What do people mean when they say "unalienable"
 * What do people mean when they say "inalienable"
 * Are they using the two terms in the same context?


 * Interestingly, the first ten hits I looked at on Google pointed to this article or to articles using a wiki engine with the exact same contents as the main article here. Not sure if that means there is really only a single source for the existence of a controversy.... --Habap 21:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I gave a link the the Google search I used above. Could you provide a link to the search you made?  --Zephram Stark 21:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I only clicked on yours, so it's the same link. --Habap 21:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, the "scholarly article" link is not real useful. It points to a page that uses the term "unalienable" but never mentions "inalienable" or the controversy. The links on "what do people mean when they say" are equally un-helpful. The first points to the main article here and the other seven merely to the modern use for the term "inalienable". To look at the Google hits:
 * Amy Ridenour suggests we look at the wiki on free-definition.com, which mirrors our main article
 * Labor Law Talk mirror of our article
 * Psych Central's mirror, which leaves out the controversy
 * A conservative book on unalienable rights
 * The reference.com mirror


 * So, the multiple sources of the controversy are starting to look like a single source, placed on severals servers. I could really be wrong, but I think it's a molehill, not a mountain that we're dealing with. --Habap 21:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you had your mind made up before you started researching, but thanks for your opinion. My point was that "unalienable" is used today in reference to the Declaration of Independence, whereas "inalienable" is used today in a context completely different than that of the Declaration of Independence.  Clicking on the common sense links above, it's not to hard to figure out that "unalienable" means "cannot be alienated," and that "inalienable" means "should not be alienated, but often already is."  --Zephram Stark 21:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What links above show me is that one article appears in several places and, of course, says exactly the same words about "Unalienable vs Inalienable". Not similar arguments, but rather the exact same words. The one link you supplied about "unalienable" is to this article, and, as such, not evidence (you can't quote the article in the article). The others all indicate that the word "inalienable" is, in fact, a word that is in use. None of the links point to an article that contends that "unalienable" is even a word (though we know that it is and was, in fact, used in the DoI). Yes, I am starting to form an opinion that little evidence of a difference exists. I am perfectly willing to be swayed by evidence that one exists. Until it is presented, I won't believe it. --Habap 21:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that "unalienable rights," as used in the Declaration of Independence, means "rights that cannot be alienated?" --Zephram Stark 22:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My meager understanding of both terms (unalienable rights AND inalienable rights) is that they both describe rights which cannot be given away or sold. If Jefferson did, in fact, use the terms interchangeably, then I don't understand why you are contending there is a difference, other than that unalienable is rarely, if ever, used in modern speech. If you can find examples that use both terms and describe the differences between them, explaining that Jefferson meant something different when using one instead of the other, I think it would end this discussion. Thus far, I have only seen one or the other word used, unless it was a mirror of this article. If there are 18000 hits, surely you can use that search to provide several examples. I didn't find any when I looked at it. --Habap 14:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think you answered my question. Would you agree that "unalienable rights," as used in the Declaration of Independence, means "rights that cannot be alienated?"  --Zephram Stark 22:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Above, I wrote that unalienable rights (and inalienable rights) are rights which cannot be given away or sold. Is there something unclear in my statement? --Habap 15:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If "Unalienable rights" are "rights that cannot be alienated," the Declaration of Independence term must be different from the current usage of "Inalienable rights." As per the examples at the top of this section, "Inalienable rights" currently refers to rights that can be taken away.  --Zephram Stark 21:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * But Zeph, the reason for the US Declaration of Independence was that the government under which they were ruled denied the opportunity to exercise the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


 * In looking at the article in Al-Ahram, they assert the right of return for refugees. They are being denied this inalienable right, just as our forefathers were being denied their unalienable rights. I still fail to see any difference. Are you asserting that the DoI was NOT written with the intention of forming a new country in which these unalienable rights would no longer be withheld from the people? --Habap 17:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This argument has already been fought on this page (see archive), and Talk:United States Declaration of Independence, and was the subject of a VfD Articles for deletion/Unalienable rights. For goodness sake, Zephram, nobody agrees with you!  Stop cluttering up Talk pages with nonsense.  --JW1805 00:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope people follow your link and look at that page. Septentrionalis gave a forgone conclusion and asked for his friends to support that conclusion.  No discussion took place.  Those who objected were ignored.
 * Granted, popular opinion is important, but should never trump self-evident fact. People can click on the links at the top of this section and see how the term "Inalienable rights" is used today.  It is a far cry from how "unalienable rights" was used in the Declaration of Independence.  --Zephram Stark 21:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As you well know, there was plenty of discussion at Talk:United States Declaration of Independence, including my citing of numerious dictionaries (which you refuse to believe. Are the dictionary writers part of the conspiracy too?)  --JW1805 19:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Disputed Content

Is the United States Declaration of Independence an example of the naturalistic fallacy? Is there any authoritative source that says that the Declaration is naturalistic fallacy? If no source can be cited that specifically links the Declaration to naturalistic fallacy, should we state that there is such a link in the Inalienable rights article? --Zephram Stark 00:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The material should stay. It is criticism of the philosophical concept of inalienable rights.  There are sources given. --JW1805 00:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please name one. I can't find anything anywhere stating that the Declaration of Independence is an example of the naturalistic fallacy.  --Zephram Stark 00:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You do not appear to understand what naturalistic fallacy is. To be *extremely* brief, it is a false belief that something is good because it is natural.  The Declaration claims that the inalienable rights are natural because they are granted by the creator.  We assume they are good or they wouldn't have fought a revolution for them.  So, it is a simple example of belief that something is good simply because it is natural.  Do not confuse natural fallacy with claiming that something is bad.  Some natural things are good, like a pretty flower.  Some natural things are bad, like a hurricane ripping through your city and destroying your house and now you're in a moldy apartment in Texas with a crappy dial-up connection.  Natural fallacy is just a label for the belief that natural things are inherently good.  A common counter-example to the goodness of the inalienable rights is a child molester.  The molester gains happiness from molesting children.  Is his inalienable right to pursue happiness good? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.59.27.163 (talk &bull; contribs)  00:41, 19 October 2005.


 * I have read the article on naturalistic fallacy and I understand what it is. It has nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence, and I can't find a single source that claims it does.  Can you?  --Zephram Stark 01:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the reason no authoritative source I can find claims that the Declaration has anything to do with naturalistic fallacy is because the Declaration didn't argue that it was good to split away from England. It proclaimed that it was necessary——that given the circumstances, we didn't have a choice.  Pleas deal with petitions for what is argued to be good.  Declarations are statements of action that are going to happen regardless of anyone's subjective view of what goodness is or is not.  --Zephram Stark 02:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

When I look up "naturalistic fallacy" "declaration of independence" in Google, I don't get anything linking the two, but I get the following quote from bestselling author Seven Pinker:


 * "Humans, however much they might differ in certain traits, don't differ in having a desire for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These desires do not depend on having a soul but on being a member of a species that was homogenized in certain ways by natural selection."

Pinker doesn't think that the unalienable rights described in the Declaration of Independence have anything to do with morals or anyone's definition of goodness. According to him, they are part of evolutionary creation. Just like the signers of the Declaration of Independence said, they are "truths" held "to be self-evident," not arguments for what is good. --Zephram Stark 02:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Zephram, why are you stuck on Declaration of Independence and Splitting from England. This is an article about Inalienable Rights. Get the right article before crying that you can't find someting on Google. The argument made is not Original Research. It is simple logic that a baby can understand. Inalienable Rights are good because the Creater gave them to us. That is Naturalisic Fallacy. Maybe if you searched for the Naturalitic Fallacy of Inalienable Rights you would know what you are arguing about. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.202.15.98 (talk &bull; contribs) 13:24, 19 October 2005.

The page Naturalistic fallacy says nothing about "rights" (either inalienable or unalienable.)  If the author of this “alleged logical fallacy” or some other external scholarship on the matter makes this linkage, a source should be cited. In general, the “criticisms” section as presently written is objectionable to me b/c it has no citations to known authors, whereas the “origins” section has links to several. FRS 15:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The two general ways to look at it are from a Hamiltonian or Jeffersonian viewpoint. The criticism is so severly Hamiltonian that I don't think anyone has ever taken it that far. At the very least, a Jeffersonian viewpoint should be represented as well. --D'Arby 19:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

IMO, the Criticism Section requires editing to eliminate weasel words, e.g., WHO has "often critised" the concept? and to eliminate conclusory POV/Original Research e.g., "existence of inalienable rights is unnecessary..." Otherwise, it should be deleted. FRS 22:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As usual, Zephram has derailed this thread with his usual trolling tactics. The Declaration of Independence has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.  It is not original research to take well-known facts and make a well-educated conclusion from them.
 * The issue is simple: Is it possible for inalienable rights to be an example of naturalistic fallacy? This requires us to come to a consensus about the definition of inalienable rights and naturalistic fallacy.  Until that takes place, the primary question cannot be answered.
 * I completely disagree with Zephram's assertion that "inalienable rights = The Declaration of Independence". Some inalienable rights are inside the declaration, but then I am inside a house.  You wouldn't claim that I am a house because I'm inside one.  You wouldn't claim my house is a human because I'm inside it.  Zephram's rationalization is simple stupidity.
 * It is easy to make the mistake: "Inalienable rights are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Those are examples of inalienable rights.  The Chiefs, Bears, and Dolphins are examples of NFL teams.  But, NFL teams are not the Chiefs, Bears, and Dolphins (there are many more teams).
 * I feel that to define "inalienable rights", we need to define "inalienable" and "rights". Pehaps they will form a definition on their own.  Inalienable means "cannot be removed".  Some will say it means "cannot be given away or transferred".  But, it also means "cannot be taken".  I used "removed" to cover both "given" and "taken".  Rights are a step above a privilege.  A privilege is a special advantage or permission.  A privilege can be morally wrong - such as special privileges given to the rich and denied to the poor.  A right is always morally good.  I have thought and thought and I cannot think of any rights that were not considered morally good when they were rights (but, morals do change over time - such as the right to own slaves.  It was morally right at one time, but is now considered immoral).  Combined, inalienable rights are morally good principles that cannot be removed.  Is that an acceptable definition here?
 * As for the "naturalistic fallacy", this is hard because it is so often misused. It is not an "is=ought" argument.  For example: We ought to hunt deer because a wolf is hunting deer.  Naturalistic fallacy comes in when you make a moral or ethical judgement based on what is naturally occuring.  Such as: It is OK for humans to hunt deer because other animals hunt deer.  The difference between this and the "is=ought" argument is that this one makes a moral judgement.  The first one doesn't claim it is right or wrong, it just says that we ought to do it.
 * Do not think that all naturalistic fallacy judgements are wrong. Consider this: It is wrong to enslave other humans because penguins don't enslave other penguins.  The conclusion is considered by most people to be correct - slavery is immoral.  The reasoning is the fallacy.  The fact that penguins do not naturally enslave one another has nothing to do with humans enslaving one another.  That was an obvious one.  This one is harder to accept, but it is still naturalistic fallacy: Abortion is wrong because ending a life is murder.  There is no argument that ending a life is murder.  It is natural to believe so.  However, making a moral or ethical statement based on the natural event of murder is a naturalistic fallacy.  Accepting that does not mean that you are for or against abortion.  It simply means that you accept that the argument posed requires more than just "ending a life is murder".
 * To remove naturalistic fallacy, you must remove either the moral judgement or the basis on a natural occurence. So, you could say, "I'm not going to have an abortion because ending a life is murder."  There's no naturalistic fallacy there because there's no moral judgement.  It does not specifically claim that abortion is right or wrong - but you can read between the lines and get the implication that the speaker believes it is wrong.  Alternately, you could say "Abortion is wrong because it goes against my religious beliefs."  A person's religious beliefs are not a naturally occuring event.  They are, in themeselves, morals and ethics.  Basing a moral judgement on other morals is not naturalistic fallacy.
 * To wrap up this long post, it is my opinion that we can answer the primary question: Are inalienable rights an example of naturalistic fallacy? Is there any argument that inalienable rights contain a moral judgement based on a naturally occuring event?  Reading the posts here, I can see that some feel that there is the implied moral judgement that inalienable rights are good.  I can also see that some feel that this moral goodness is based on the opinion that everyone naturally has inalienable rights.  My response would be that inalienable rights are not, in themselves, an example of naturalistic fallacy.  However, the following comment is: Inalienable rights are good because all humans were created with them.
 * I'm sorry for the long post, but it is hard word to wrestle a thread away from a troll. I hope this helps. Kainaw 22:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree strongly with Kainaw. The issue is NOT "Is it possible for inalienable rights to be an example of naturalistic fallacy? "  The issue IS: what belongs in an encyclopedia article entitled "Inalienable rights?"  IMO, the article should inlude (1) the historical facts about the roots and meaning(s) of the term; (2) how it (or its predecessor "unalienable rights") came to be included in the Declaration of Independence and (3) the influence of the concept on subsequent political discourse and the evolution of recognized human rights in the US and elsewhere.  The article might also include a section containing (with citations) the views of notable social scientists or philosophers on the source or existence of these rights and their scope (e.g., why  "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"), but WP editors should not be attempting to "define" the term  themselves or publishing original analysis purporting to prove (or disprove) that "inalienable rights an example of naturalistic fallacy."FRS 15:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I AGREE Wikipedia should gather the conclusions of other people, not create conclusions of our own.  --D'Arby 16:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Argument A
Imagine an argument. You don't have to agree that the argument is true or makes sense. Only imagine that someone has made this argument. The argument is that people have certain rights by virtue of their personal constitution. These rights are not good or bad. They simply exist. In this argument, these rights are reflexive. A person cannot go against these rights. The rights control the person. A person cannot give these rights to a government because they do not have control over these rights. Those who claim to give these rights to a government are making a contract that they cannot fulfill. A government that seeks to control these rights will always fail. Someone making this argument would point to all historical examples of government as proof that no government has ever been able to control certain specified rights of the general public. Let's call this Argument A.

Argument B
Compare this to Kainaw's argument that "a right is always morally good." As Kainaw puts it: "inalienable rights are morally good principles that cannot be removed." Let's call this Argument B.

Comparison
Some people claim that Argument A results in a morally good outcome because it keeps government from controlling civilians. Yet because Argument A requires that human nature gives people and governments no choice in the existence of certain rights, claims of morality only observe that human nature creates a desirable outcome. Whether or not the eventual outcome can be considered morally good, Argument A does not rely on morality for certain rights to exist.

Argument A is fundamentally different from Argument B. Whether or not some people question the substance of these arguments, A and B have both been made and examples can clearly be divided into arguments of A or B.  We have two arguments and specific examples of each. Our only remaining task is to determine what word or phrase in the English language is used to delineate Argument A, and what word or phrase is used to delineate Argument B. --D'Arby 17:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's pretty easy to tell the difference between rights based on morals and rights based on what human nature will allow us to do. If anyone in the history of the world has ever given up their right in a particular area, successfully and permanently, that right must be alienable.  --Zephram Stark 21:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The trouble here is that the rights in question (those which the US DoI was written in order to secure) were already being abrogated by the King. As such, it hardly matters why they had the rights in the first place....--Habap 16:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticism Section
I think that criticism should be limited to conclusions reached by independent sources, and should not include conclusions reached by Wikipedia editors. Do you agree or disagree?


 * Agree --D'Arby 17:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agee, strongly, per my comment on 23 Oct above FRS 17:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree on the condition that none of the Wikipedia editors are experts in the field of Inalienable Rights. Being an editor on Wikipedia should not keep a person from entering information that they know.  Consider a lawyer who has written multiple books and research papers on the USA PATRIOT ACT.  Should she be allowed to make a comment in the USA PATRIOT ACT article?  If the rule is: "no conclusions from Wikipedia editors", then the answer is no.  Can her conclusions be added if another person references one of her papers?  The answer is yes.  The rule is not enforcing good information, it is enforcing who is allowed to enter the information.  That is what I disagree with. Kainaw 19:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree on the same conditions as Kainaw. An authoritative source should be cited when the information is controversial.  The Criticism section is highly controversial, yet its claims are not cited for the obvious reason that they are original research.  --Zephram Stark 20:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticism Section/PROPOSAL
OK, if we're going to have a criticism section with anything resembling the current content, I believe it has to look more like this with names and references provided:

"Professors/scholars XXX and YYY and their followers, sometimes referred to as ZZZ, (add cite) have criticized the concept of inalienable rights for being largely groundless, since no explanation is given as to where these rights come from. These scholars contend that if inalienable rights are based on theological principles (as in "God-given rights"), one may ask which theological principles those are (since none of the major religions of the world confirms the existence of inalienable rights), or why those theological principles should be accepted by people who do not adhere to the religion from which they are derived.

Further, they say, if inalienable rights are said to be based on Natural Law, then this argument can easily be criticized for being a non sequitur and an example of the naturalistic fallacy. The phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident" has been accused of being simply a more elegant version of "Because we said so".

Followers of this school of thought further believe that existence of inalienable rights is unnecessary for the existence of a constitution or a set of laws and rights and that rights and responsibilities are derived from a consensual social contract between the government and the people.

This line of reasoning has itself been criticized by...(add cite)"

Otherwise, I'd prefer to delete the whole section. FRS 18:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * According to this edit by Mel Etitis: "these issues are dealt with in two of the "Sources & further reading". I've never read "Locke on Government" or "Theories of Rights", but I'm willing to assume good faith that these issues are discussed.  --JW1805 18:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I certainly accept the assume good faith maxim as a general rule, but where one user asserts a fact first edit that another user immediately disputes [second edit], what's a poor newbie to do? Besides, saying "these issues are dealt with" is itself weaselly since it doesn't necessarily mean that the authors of the cited sources hold the views expressed in the criticism section.  For all one knows, they "deal with" them by trashing them.  I think its reasonable to ask not only that criticism should be limited to conclusions reached by independent sources but that those sources be specifically identified. FRS 20:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Review of Locke on Government has: "Where criticism is appropriate (just about everywhere!), Lloyd Thomas is fair-minded, sympathetic enough to tackle Locke's claims at their strongest, yet ruthless in exposing weakness.". So this author does seem to discuss some criticism (although, again, I haven't read it). --JW1805 18:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This statement from the review you linked seems most pertinent here: "I doubt there is any prospect of agreement amongst scholars...." FRS 20:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Does the Declaration of Independence have anything to do with this thread?
In the Request for Comment section above, Kainaw says, "The Declaration of Independence has absolutely nothing to do with this thread."

I agree that the U.S. Declaration of Independence logically doesn't have anything to do with this thread, but Wikipedia claims that it does anyway. If you go to the Principles Section of the Declaration of Independence and click on unalienable rights, it leads you to this article criticizing it for being either religious in nature or a non sequitur example of naturalistic fallacy.

Obviously, people reading the U.S. Declaration of Independence and clicking on unalienable rights are going to get the idea that some scholar has associated the unalienable rights of the U.S. Declaration of Independence with naturalistic fallacy. As far as I can tell, no such association has been made except by User:Mel Etitis.

Are we to consider our fellow editor Mel to be such an expert on the subject that we should abandon our notions that "unalienable rights" mean "rights that cannot be alienated?" Even though religion is not mentioned or eluded to in the Declaration, should we ascribe religious meaning to the Declaration? Even though the rights of the Declaration are asserted to be part of the "self-evident" equal nature of mankind, and based in no part on any moralistic principle, are we to ascribe a moral basis for these rights so that we can claim that they are an example of naturalistic fallacy?

Who is this expert capable of changing the spelling of words and the obvious meaning of phrases of the U.S. Declaration of Independence to fit his notions of criticism? After three months of researching it and asking for sources, I'm getting the idea that Mel's expert is only Mel. --Zephram Stark 01:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I move that the Declaration of Independence no longer be associated with Mel's original research. "Unalienable rights" as used in the Declaration of Independence obviously have nothing to do with this article.  They are not morally or religiously based.  They are asserted to be merely "unalienable."  The words of the Declaration of Independence speak for themselves and are as clear as those of any document can get.  "Unalienable" means nothing more or less than "cannot be alienated."  "Self-evident" means nothing more or less than "evidence of which one can see for oneself."


 * Agree --Zephram Stark 01:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "Even though religion is not mentioned or eluded to in the Declaration". Really, Zephram?  what about "Nature’s God", "endowed by their Creator", "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World", "with a firm Reliance on the Protection of the divine Providence"?  Maybe you should read it.  Honestly, the sheer amount of nonsense that you have cluttered up these various talk pages with is staggering.  You just added another 5 paragraphs of the same tripe that you've restated over and over again.  Agree that your contributions are worthless (although, still somewhat amusing).  --JW1805 02:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you understand the difference between religion and the Creator? Obviously we were created, so we have a creator.  When you don't define that creator, it can mean anything or anyone.  One can believe in "Nature’s God", "their Creator", a "Supreme Judge of the World" and "divine Providence" without adhering to a religion or any particular definition of "their Creator."  Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, abhorred religion.  As Joseph J. Ellis puts it in his Pulitzer Prize winning book Founding Brothers (pg. 139), "Jefferson longed for the day when the last king would be strangled with the entrails of the last priest."  --Zephram Stark 15:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You're confusing "religion" with "organized religion". I would say to look up these terms in a dictionary.....but since you don't believe in dictionaries, there's probably little point. --JW1805 16:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to be an entry for "organized religion" at webster.com, at dictionary.com, or in my 3194-page Webster's New International Dictionary. What dictionary are you using?  --Zephram Stark 20:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand any difference between unalienable and inalienable rights, Zeph. You stated it's not to hard to figure out that "unalienable" means "cannot be alienated," and that "inalienable" means "should not be alienated, but often already is." Oddly, the DoI uses unalienable to describe the rights (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) that the colonists were fighting in order to secure.
 * I pointed out that in the Al-Ahram article, they assert the right of return for refugees. They feel that they have that right, just as the colonists had the rights for which launched their war of independence in order to secure. Heck, it sounds like the colonists rights "should not be alienated, but" already are. --Habap 17:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if the term "unalienable" were still used to day, it would be perverted like "inalienable," but it isn't used today. "Unalienable" still means what it meant in the Declaration of Independence.  "Inalienable," however, has been perverted by usage to mean a right that can be relinquished (but shouldn't be, according to on moral arguments).


 * Breathing is an example of an unalienable right. We cannot give up our right to breath.  It is such a basic part of human nature that it cannot be relinquished by consent, by force, by coercion, or any other means.  Our right to breath is not based on moral principles.  It exists whether you believe in it or not.  The ability to breath can be taken from a person, but a human being can never give up their right to breath.


 * Compare the right to breath to the right to own property and you can see that one is based on observable fact, while there other is based on moral arguments. Human beings have given up their right to own property.  They are certainly capable of it.  In fact, in some cultures, women existed without any property.  Even their hairbrushes belonged to their fathers or husbands.  You could argue that this was morally wrong, but it certainly was possible.


 * It is irrelevant whether or not you believe that our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is as integrated as breathing. The only thing that matters to the article is that the signers of the Declaration of Independence believed it.  They clearly stated, as a self-evident truth, that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness cannot be alienated.  --Zephram Stark 21:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, you are correct. Zephrham Stark's distinction between these two words are not found in any dictionary, and exist only in his mind.  But, I predict that won't stop him from responding to your comments with another 10 paragraph essay, including quotes from the Declaration of Independence, links to other websites that have no relevance, misrepresentations of Google search results, wild allegations that you are corrupt (or trying to hide the truth), etc. etc.  This really is getting old. --JW1805 17:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm still finding it amusing, especially that the references in the DoI to God are not religious. His intractability rivals that of Louis Epstein.... --Habap 19:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have to give you an essay on it. D'Arby already has in the Request for Comment section.  The Declaration of Independence obviously uses Argument A.  The refuges obviously use Argument B.  --Zephram Stark 20:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, for the record, I suspect that D'Arby is a sockpuppet of yours (you do have a history of this behavior, since it makes it look like someone else agrees with you, see |your your RfA). It seems odd that the user's first edit on Wikipedia would be to comment on an obscure argument on the talk page of Declaration of Independence.  Plus it's pretty obvious that the rambling 4-paragraph essay above was written by you.--JW1805 21:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's easy to say that everyone who doesn't agree with you is a sockpuppet, but the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is about consensus, not voting. There is no need for sockpuppets at Wikipedia.  If something makes sense, it doesn't matter if one or twenty people propose it.  --Zephram Stark 21:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Better go ahead and look up "consensus" in the dictionary too. (Here's a preview: it requires more than one person). --JW1805 21:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Consensus; 1. Harmony, co-operation, or sympathy in different parts of an organism; — orig. as a term of physiology. 2. Unanimity or general agreement in matters of opinion, evidence, testimony, etc.  3. by general consent.


 * I don't know what you mean by "too." What else am I supposed to look up in the dictionary?  --Zephram Stark 22:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Look up unalienable and inalienable. Maybe parable also. By the definition posted above, the thoughts of a single wikibot cannot be a consensus. --Habap 16:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In older dictionaries, unalienable and inalienable are synonyms, meaning that they had similar definitions. As long as they both claimed to be "rights that cannot be alienated," they remained synonyms.  Today, the usage of "inalienable" has changed.  It now means "rights that can be alienated, but should not be."  See the two words in context for examples.  --Zephram Stark 19:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Mel has placed a link to his moralistic criticism of "inalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence and has quoted the Declaration in this article. The Declaration obviously claims to make no moralistic arguments and is thereby not susceptible to moralistic criticism. Whether or not we want to keep Mel's original research as a criticism of the current usage of "inalienable rights," it doesn't change the fact that moralistic criticism is absolutely not applicable to the Declaration of Independence.

I propose that we follow Wikipedia standards:
 * We delete original research that neither Mel nor anyone else can cite, AND
 * We write a separate section for the non-moralistic way that "unalienable rights" is used in the Declaration of Independence, since the signers obviously did not make their argument on moral grounds.
 * --Zephram Stark 19:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) I suspect that ZS is using "moralistic" in an idiosyncratic way; unfortunately I don't know how, exactly, so can't really respond.
 * 2) I've given citations; ZS, without reading them, has declared that they're inadequate &mdash; presumably on a priori grounds.
 * 3) The original research involved in ZS's account of the Declaration of Independence shouldn't be allowed to skew the article. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've read your "citations", and they do not support the conclusions you have reached. It wouldn't take much to prove me wrong, simply a quote from any reputable source stating that the Declaration of Independence is an example of naturalistic fallacy.  Without it, your associating the Declaration of Independence with naturalistic fallacy is nobody's conclusion but your own——pure original research.  --Zephram Stark 03:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

End of discussion?
Since the main person who had such a big problem with this article (Zephram Stark) has now been banned for 6 months for disruptive behavior, is this discussion over now? If so, I'm going to move all this to the Archive 1 (since it is a continuation of a discussion from there). --JW1805 16:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)